Jackson Financial Services, LLC v. Mason et al

Filing 187

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered denying without prrejudice 104 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying without prejudice 108 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 140 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Ca se Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document.; denying 151 Report and Recommendations.; granting 152 Report and Recommendations.; finding as moot 170 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document.; granting 186 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Lyness, Paul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-11739-GAO
JACKSON FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CT MASON, INC. d/b/a/ MASON CAPITAL PARTNERS,
Defendant.
ORDER
March 31, 2017
O’TOOLE, D.J.
In response to this Court’s March 10, 2017 Order (dkt. no. 181), the plaintiff, Jackson
Financial Services, LLC (“JFS”), submitted a supplemental memorandum addressing the merits
of the defendant’s proposed affirmative defenses to the plaintiff’s breach of an implied contract
theory of liability (dkt. no. 184). The defendant, CT Mason, Inc. d/b/a Mason Capital Partners
(“CTM”), filed a reply to that memorandum (dkt. no. 185), and JFS then filed a motion for leave
to file a brief in response (dkt. no. 186). That motion is GRANTED, and the proposed brief
included with that motion is deemed to have been a brief and was considered by the Court. The
Court thanks the parties for their helpful submissions.
As foreshadowed by the March 10 Order, I now overrule the magistrate judge’s
recommendation (dkt. no. 151) that the defendant’s motion to amend its answer to add the
affirmative defenses that the alleged implied contract is unenforceable under Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 259, Section 7, and because it is in violation of Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 206(4)-3, be denied. CTM’s Motion for Leave to File Its Amended Answer (dkt.
no. 140) is GRANTED, and the defendant may file an amended answer asserting those defenses.

The plaintiff states that it would have conducted discovery directed at those issues if they
had been asserted previously. Although discovery in the case has been extensive, I will reopen the
discovery period for both sides for a period of two months for the limited purpose of developing
facts related to the newly alleged affirmative defenses. The discovery deadline shall be set for May
31, 2017.
Because of the explicit assertion of the new affirmative defenses and the possibility of new
evidence from discovery, it is likely that the parties’ arguments concerning summary judgment in
either direction will be altered from what has heretofore been presented. Accordingly, the currently
pending cross motions for summary judgment (dkt. nos. 104, 108) are both DENIED without
prejudice, subject to renewal after the close of the discovery period. The defendant’s Motion for
Leave to File a Reply in Support of Its Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation
(dkt. no. 170) is MOOT.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2